So IGN decided to ask "why do people hate EA"

[johnnnny guitar]

So IGN thought that they would try and tackle the issue of people's hate of
EA being at an all time high.

I was just wondering what are your thoughts on IGN's article

EDIT-CEPTION:
Here's the link for people that can't download the image

http://au.ign.com/articles/2012/06/14/why-do-people-hate-ea

and here's the image for people who don't want to give traffic to IGN/Murdoch

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

I really don't like IGN, I mean, they are owned by the same people that owns FOX.

This article also reminded me a lot of something that I would hear on FOX news...
EDIT: It'd also be nice to know if the entire article is a quote from the guy, or if it is author speculation...
If it's a quote, then we're right, EA is owned by dicks
If it's author speculation, then he is terrible at his job.

 

[Fr]anc[is]

Don't link to nerdbait. It's precisely what they want and need to generate extra ad revenue

 

[Thoric485]

I'm having trouble reading this with a straight face past the point where they referred to "biggest" and "high Metacritic score" as some sort of valuable qualities, and to EA itself as "profitable, but not outrageously so", as if the company's welfare is what offends people, and not its practices.

Also searching for the words "Origin Systems", "Westwood", "Bullfrog", "Mythic" and "Pandemic" returns 0 results (though Peter Moore did refer to some developers as roadkill at the end, so I'm guessing that was it). And it's amusing how all the specific examples of EA fucking up, are juxtapositioned with generalities like "EA has done some very smart things with Origin". I myself can't recall any such things.

So in my mind I can safely conclude the person who wrote this is an idiot, a shill or both. Instead of telling the readers why people hate EA, he tells them why they should put up with EA.

Here's the whole thing in image form so as to not give him any article hits:

Spoiler

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I find it funny how he states that EA was voted the worst company in America because of nerd rage over the Mass Effect 3 ending, while in fact EA was voted the worst company in America BEFORE Mass Effect 3 was released.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Oh IGN you worthless piece of shit, much like yourself EA deserves every bit of poo flung at them because neither you or them have any restrain when it comes to abusing peoples good will, then coming around and claiming you are doing nothing wrong.

So since you haven't been potty trained properly we have an obligation to smack you in the gob till you become a useful part of society or you go shit on someone else's carpet.

 

[felbot]

they sold me a product which didn't work, at all forcing me to pirate the game.
constantly berating other companies despite being no better.
and of course origin, i hate it.

 

[DragonStorm247]

My issue isn't really against EA specifically, it's just that I dislike publishers in general.

 

[rob_simple]

I think the 'if you don't like it, don't buy it' ideal stills holds up in the above scenario because, as I've pointed out several times, all of the games mentioned in the example are sequels; if you like the series then you already have a previous installment in your collection.

It's like when people rage over a company changing the format of a game like Dead Space 3 (without even having played it): if you don't like the new direction the developer is taking, then you still have two perfectly good games that you clearly already like to play; let the rest of us who aren't so close-minded try something new and also, if it really is the wrong direction, let the sales dictate that.

Of course we all know that will never happen because, despite their constant bleating about boycotts on forums, fanboys will always buy every installment of their beloved franchise without fail.

 

[Sexy Devil]

I find it funny how he states that EA was voted the worst company in America because of nerd rage over the Mass Effect 3 ending, while in fact EA was voted the worst company in America BEFORE Mass Effect 3 was released.

Because there was no nerdrage going on over ME3 before ME3 was released...

The nerdrage was only about crap like Diana Allers dressing slutty and having a face deep in the uncanny valley, and James Vega looking like he's from Jersey Shore. You know, stuff that most of us don't care about but find it fun to make fun of.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I find it funny how he states that EA was voted the worst company in America because of nerd rage over the Mass Effect 3 ending, while in fact EA was voted the worst company in America BEFORE Mass Effect 3 was released.

Because there was no nerdrage going on over ME3 before ME3 was released...

There's nerd rage over ANY game (especially any sequel) before that game is released, but you don't suddenly see Bungie or Rockstar being called the worst company in America. The nerd rage that occurred before Mass Effect 3's release had absolutely nothing to do with it. In fact, on the scale of pre-release nerd rage it barely even registered.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

A combination of some bad business moves and mob mentality among vocal gamers (and the internet on a whole, even).

 

[dimensional]

Interesting article I liked the bit where he makes a few presumptive leaps to compare companies to dogs just to make some pointless analogy and then saying working at EA is better than working in a diamond mine, Id bloody well hope so jeez.

It seems they are still in denial though thinking the haters are few and actually a lot of people like them, well lets see how that belief works out for them.

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

Third: Really? Have you lived under a rock to disregard all this rage about the ME3 story spoiler or the leaked final scenes? The shitstorm before release was not small.

Actually, I only even heard about that well after I'd played the game. Then again, I don't exactly go out of my way to follow up spoilers on something I don't want spoiled.

 

[fozzy360]

Of course we all know that will never happen because, despite their constant bleating about boycotts on forums, fanboys will always buy every installment of their beloved franchise without fail.

I can understand why they would despite their reservations. Take Dead Space 3, for instance. Many people aren't happy with it and the direction it seems to be going on, and not buying, yes, does seem like a perfectly reasonable tactic to teach EA a lesson about alienating your fanbase. On the other hand, if DS3 doesn't live up to their own unrealistcally high expectations, they'll just ignore the actual complaints on people, focus on the sales numbers alone, and announce that there's decreased interest in the franchise, which will mean that the franchise will be lost. It's a kind of a no-win scenario. Damned if you do (buy the game just to support the franchise, but EA only pays attention to sales, continues in this "broaden audience appeal" mentality), damned if you don't (don't buy, EA gets disappointed, kills Dead Space).

 

[Avalanche91]

EA hate exists because

-EA makes terrible business decisions a la Origin(after taking a look I estimate more then 50% of the origin forums are people asking for help because their purchases don't work or origin bugged out. take a look there, it's really quite depressing)

-EA has horrible PR. (If one of your people is trying to make a system to have the player pay for bullets, you try to avoid that guy's idea from ever leaving the meeting room, not post it online)

-EA has horrible PR cont. (Their reaction on the Mass Effect 3 ending controversy was to call their customer base entitled whiners. Which brings us to-)

-EA ruins the developpers it publishes (Possibly not entirely EA's fault, I don't know enough about the subject. I do know that I enjoyed Dragon Age Origins a lot more then Dragon Age 2.)


I could go on, talking about Day 1 DLC, DRM shenanigans, dumbing their games down almost insultingly and more Origin bargage. But I wont

 

[Cowabungaa]

According to me, this part is the key:

As companies go, EA is not as cuddly and nice as, say Valve. But then, Valve isn't publicly traded. Valve isn't owned by banks.

That's the problem right there. EA isn't owned by people who are passionate about the medium of videogames. The people who keep that business afloat probably haven't touched a videogame in their life. And for a business that's engaged in a creative industry that is dangerous.

Of course I understand that thanks to those unaffiliated people we get increased budgets. But that doesn't change the problem that the people who ultimately rule over EA just don't get the industry and it's customers.

I don't think that companies should be there and inherently exist to "just make more money", I don't think that's a healthy way of conducting business and there should be company values, business ethics and morals to uphold.

And I don't think having those would drive them bankrupt or anything of the likes, just have to look at other companies like Valve and CDProjekt and they've seemed to manage fine so far without employing business practices that piss of a large part of consumers and without gouging either, not to talk about smaller development studios or indies.

That's exactly why I hate shareholders. They just want to make more money. They have no other interest in the company. And they ultimately decide the course of business, because what are you going to do without investors when you're a public company?

I honestly I have no doubt that the majority of EA's actual employees are passionate about videogames. But they're not on top of the food chain, and that's an issue.

 

[veloper]

Poorly researched article, but

"banning accounts for no good reason", should be reason enough to understand why gamers hate EA.
Some of us are just social enough to realise bad things aren't bad only when they happen to ourselves.

Then there's the rest of the list:
- pioneering heavy DRM with Spore and ME
- shutting down multiplayer game servers
- buying and destroying favourite studios
- destroying popular franchises in the proces
- day-1 DLC on top of $60 games (this one did get a line in the article)

 

[teebeeohh]

i generally don't think companies should exist just to make money. i know this is the main focus but i always thought providing the customer with something that makes their lives better and caring for the people you employ should be as important.
and i hate EA because they ruined my childhood when they killed Ultima. and now they dare call their shitty steam clone Origin.

 

[rob_simple]

Of course we all know that will never happen because, despite their constant bleating about boycotts on forums, fanboys will always buy every installment of their beloved franchise without fail.

I can understand why they would despite their reservations. Take Dead Space 3, for instance. Many people aren't happy with it and the direction it seems to be going on, and not buying, yes, does seem like a perfectly reasonable tactic to teach EA a lesson about alienating your fanbase. On the other hand, if DS3 doesn't live up to their own unrealistcally high expectations, they'll just ignore the actual complaints on people, focus on the sales numbers alone, and announce that there's decreased interest in the franchise, which will mean that the franchise will be lost. It's a kind of a no-win scenario. Damned if you do (buy the game just to support the franchise, but EA only pays attention to sales, continues in this "broaden audience appeal" mentality), damned if you don't (don't buy, EA gets disappointed, kills Dead Space).

I think you missed my point. I was saying that the fanboys will buy it anyway, not to support the franchise (because who is honestly willing to spunk forty quid/sixty dollars up the wall on something they will hate just to support a video game series?) but because their complaints are just impotent whining because things aren't going the way the want it to, yet they will still buy it anyway because a good game is a good game.

While alot of the complaints about ME3 seemed to be valid (I haven't played it, or any of the others), it's set a worrying precedent where now everyone thinks that if a game isn't being developed to their personal standards then they have the right to demand it be altered until such times as it aligns with their vision; even when that vision can be summed up as 'more of the same, forever, please' or what's commonly known as 'Nintendo'.

My approach to gaming is this: Buy a game if you want to play it; don't buy it if you don't. If a series I love suddenly goes in a horrible new direction I am sure will fail (Ratchet & Clank: All4One) I don't buy it, I play the games I already own from that series and I generally get on with my life.